I do not see any difference between that play and the Dez play in 2014 *merged*

[percyhoward]

You and a few others are too preoccupied with what the rulebook says.

If you're going to say something is a "bad rule," then you'd better know what the rule is.

 

[percyhoward]

There was no need to look for a football move with the Calvin Johnson play because he falling to the ground and the rule is clear that a receiver that’s going to the ground has to complete the process.

Here's what I mean by critical thinking.

Find the difference between these two statements.

"If a player goes to the ground..."

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..."

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't agree at all. The game is about the fans, not the other way around. You start pissing off the fans and you asking for trouble. Fans don't have to accept the NFLs stupidity. The NFL needs to understand this. "Judgement Calls" should not be a part of the game if you are going to sell the NFL on instant Replay, on Officials making calls from NY City, while actual game is going on in Dallas Texas or anywhere else in the NFL, for that matter. You can't sell your product for the amounts of money it costs to follow Football, as a fan, and just expect people to suck it up and take it. That's not realistic, as a buisiness model IMO. The NFL is spoiled because for so long, they have had no competition for the Dollars. They have forgotten that Football has never been a rich mans sport. It has always been a common mans sport. They are treating it all wrong and that's going to kill it IMO. To me, all of this BS is bad for the sport. Will end up ruining it.

If you wanna go with Judgement Calls being part of the game, (and I'm actually OK with this, I actually grew up in a time when this is how the game was played) then get rid of all the other crap that makes it suck.

 

[KJJ]

Please read this carefully and repeatedly, if necessary.

Prior to 2015, a football move is what completed the catch process.

A player could only be considered a receiver going to the ground if he did not complete the catch process before hitting the ground.

According to Blandino and everyone who’s tried to explain the rule the past few years, the catch process can’t be completed until the ball survives the ground. A receiver considered going to the ground is a receiver who’s momentum/body lean is taking them to the ground during the catch process.

 

[KJJ]

Here's what I mean by critical thinking.

Find the difference between these two statements.

"If a player goes to the ground..."

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass..."

Both are in reference to a player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. The only time the term going to the ground is ever used is in the process of a receiver catching a pass. Ertz went to the ground but he had established himself as a runner prior to falling which constitutes a legal catch under the rule. He wasn’t going to the ground in the act of catching the pass.

 

[DogFace]

Just in case you missed this.

I asked you a question.

Explain how the case play is different from the Dez catch.

If your answer is we are hung up on the rule book that states the rules to play by ill agree and know no one can answer that question because the book says it was a catch and they made a mistake.

 

[percyhoward]

Percy you are a good dude, and supply more factual data on football than probably any poster on this forum. So I will leave the thread with this, which I am sure you will agree is a concise, logical, and accurate view on the play.

For all who might be confused by all of the misleading posts on here by a few of the posters who seem to lack the ability to read and interpret rules. I have officiated multiple sports for 25 plus years...explains the username...and I actually TAUGHT CLASSES for beginning officials. I know what I am talking about when it comes to rules and how case book plays work. I would not be bragging to say I would have been more qualified to have held Blandino's position being he was an ex comedian who NEVER OFFICIATED A GAME IN HIS LIFE.
Here are the facts:
On the 4th and 2 play, Romo threw deep left to Dez. Dez high pointed it and brought it in gaining full control with both hands when his second foot lands. His body turns to his left, he takes a step and during this step, he becomes tangled up with Shields. As he starts to go down he moves the ball into his left hand...which is his dominate hand, and the one nearest the goalline...with his right hand he braces and simultaneously pushes off his left leg which goes from bent to fully extended, and this tosses up turf as he propels himself toward the endzone. As he lands just short of the goalline his control of the ball is temporarily lost.

In 2014 the rules for a catch read that a player needed to have control, have two feet down in bounds, and make or have the time to make a move common to the game.

The 2014 Case Book had the following play:

A.R. 8.12 GOING TO THE GROUND—COMPLETE PASS First-and-10-on B25. A1 throws a pass to A2 who controls the ball and gets one foot down before he is contacted by B1. He goes to the ground as a result of the contact, gets his second foot down, and with the ball in his right arm, he braces himself at the three-yard line with his left hand and simultaneously lunges forward toward the goal line. When he lands in the end zone, the ball comes out.
Ruling: Touchdown Team A. Kickoff A35. The pass is complete. When the receiver hits the ground in the end zone, it is the result of lunging forward after bracing himself at the three-yard line and is not part of the process of the catch. Since the ball crossed the goal line, it is a touchdown. If the ball is short of the goal line, it is a catch, and A2 is down by contact.

For those who don't know what a case book is, it is a supplement to the rule book that presents possible scenarios of plays that could happen under certain rules to show how the rule should be applied correctly. I will also mention that a major part of officiating is understanding how different rules line up to cover a play.

The case play presented above mixes two rules and a subsection of one of them. The first part is the catch rule, and under that rule is an item about going to the ground, which states a RECEIVER going to the ground, with or without contact, must maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground. Now back to that earlier catch rule: control, two feet, and time to or an act common to the game. Why is this important? Because completing the act of a catch turns a RECEIVER into a RUNNER. Now that rule comes into play in terms of fumbles or down by contact.

Now let's review both what Dez did and the case play presented above. In both, the receiver controlled the ball and was contacted by a defender causing them to go to the ground. The case play receiver landed on one foot, Dez landed on two. So going back to the catch rule Dez has completed 1. Control 2. Two feet down in bounds. In the case play the receiver takes a second step after contact, so now both have completed two of the three steps required to go from a RECEIVER to a RUNNER. At this point the case play RECEIVER braces and lunges to complete the third step of the catch process and is now considered a RUNNER. Dez meanwhile turns his body from the opposite sideline toward the goalline, steps with his left foot and his left leg bends at the knee as he continues down to the ground, Dez takes his right hand off the ball, with his left hand he starts to extend the ball while his right arm braces to keep his body up, with his left leg he pushes off, throws up turf, and his leg goes from bent to fully extended, he extends the ball even farther just before he hits the ground. Now the question to ask yourself here is, if the case play the RECEIVER just braced and lunged to become a RUNNER, under the catch rule what did Dez do? By my count, he turned, took a step, moved the ball, braced, pushed off his left leg, and extended the ball. If the two acts the case play player did made him a RUNNER, what does the SIX ACTS DEZ DID make him?

All involved with the overturn talked post game about football moves, so regardless of what some want you to believe, in 2014 an act common to the game (football move) mattered when going to the ground, just as the case book play clearly states. In 2015 the NFL altered the rule and changed part three of the process to upright long enough to become a runner. Why is this so-called clarification crucial? Because it negates the catch process during going to the ground. In other words, the RECEIVER must become a RUNNER before they start the going to the ground process. Yes, I am aware that the case play above stuck around for the 2015 rule and case book, however it has not existed since 2015 and it contradicts the new wording of the rule. Let's just assume 2015 was bad editing for the case book. The Dez case play included in the 2016 rule book, that conveniently left out a third step and bracing, that said reaching did not make you a runner, was just another attempt to justify an incorrect ruling under the 2014 rules. The video by Pereria that uses Dez as an example, is just an example of how THE 2015 RULE CHANGE APPLIES AND IN NO WAY FITS WITHIN THE RULES IN 2014.

And since blaming Dez for reaching came up it got me thinking...because by saying he should not have done it you are also saying he did it with intent. Since a reach is not part of catching the ball and he intended to do it to score...it makes a reach a football move.



I am out.

Besides all those casebook examples, here are Blandino's explanations from before 2015. The proof is all there.

At that time, you could make a football move while falling. Go to 1:15 of the video.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...00000246515/Calvin-Johnson-rule-strikes-again

Blandino: "Calvin did not have both feet down prior to reaching for the goal line. So this is all one process. This is an incomplete pass. Now I'll show you the difference. Let's go to Julius Thomas against the Giants. Watch what Julius does. He's gonna get control, take two steps...and now reach for the goal line. He has established himself as a runner."

Notice that Blandino doesn't say anything about Johnson's being upright. He's only concerned with whether he had control and two feet down prior to the football move. Also notice that he doesn't mention Thomas' being upright as the thing that established him as a runner. Blandino is looking for control, two feet down, and an act common to the game. In that order.

 

[KJJ]

I asked you a question.

Explain how the case play is different from the Dez catch.

If your answer is we are hung up on the rule book that states the rules to play by ill agree and know no one can answer that question because the book says it was a catch and they made a mistake.

I gave you my response.

 

[nathanlt]

You and a few others are too preoccupied with what the rulebook says. All the judgment that’s involved in making these calls isn’t going to be covered in the rulebook. You need to focus on how the calls are being officiated on the field and take into account the judgment that’s involved in making some of these calls. The OP didn’t see any difference between the Ertz play and the Dez play and although many agreed with him on this board, any rational, objective fan can clearly see they’re not close to being the same. Ertz’ feet never left the ground. He caught the ball and immediately turned up field establishing himself as a runner. When Dez’s feet contacted the ground he was clearly falling therefore he had to complete the process.

This is very telling about your approach to this subject. Stop quoting the rules, then.

 

[percyhoward]

Both are in reference to a player going to the ground in the act of catching a pass. The only time the term going to the ground is ever used is in the process of a receiver catching a pass. Ertz went to the ground but he had established himself as a runner prior to falling which constitutes a legal catch under the rule. He wasn’t going to the ground in the act of catching the pass.

What makes you think Bryant didn't complete the catch process before hitting the ground?

Other than, "because the NFL said so."

 

[KJJ]

This is very telling about your approach to this subject. Stop quoting the rules, then.

I haven’t “quoted” any rules you and the others have.

 

[percyhoward]

This is very telling about your approach to this subject. Stop quoting the rules, then.

That's a fair and logical criticism.

 

[KJJ]

What makes you think Bryant didn't complete the catch process before hitting the ground?

Other than, "because the NFL said so."

He was falling to the ground in the process of making the catch and under the rule to complete the catch process a receiver has to maintain possession of the ball through the contact of the ground and Dez clearly didn’t. Same thing with the Calvin Johnson play 4 years earlier.

 

[GenoT]

Dak woulda thrown a TD to Dez.

As arguable as anything else in this lame-azz thread.

2014 season’s over, guys...gotta pull up them big-boy diapers and move on.

 

[percyhoward]

He was falling to the ground in the process of making the catch...

That says, "He didn't complete the catch process before hitting the ground."

I want to know what you saw that led you to this conclusion.

 

[KJJ]

Other than, "because the NFL said so."

Who should everyone believe everyone in Cowboys Nation?

 

[KJJ]

That says, "He didn't complete the catch process before hitting the ground."

I want to know what you saw that led you to this conclusion.

You’re just looking for every way possible to keep this argument going. The staying power you have with this topic is beyond believe. I’ve explained multiple times what’s led me to the conclusions I have and I’m not going to continue repeating myself.

 

[percyhoward]

Who should everyone believe everyone in Cowboys Nation?

Their own eyes.

 

[KJJ]

Their own eyes.

Their own eyes are blinded by their fandom.

 

[percyhoward]

You’re just looking for every way possible to keep this argument going. The staying power you have with this is beyond believe. I’ve explained multiple times what’s led me to the conclusions I have and I’m not going to continue repeating myself.

You're avoiding my question.

At this point, I'd like you to ask yourself why you don't want to look at the play and analyze it critically.